New Essay: Putting Planet X to the Test

[jorune_98]

Putting Planet X to the Test: A comprehensive and scientific viewpoint by Tom Smith.

**** Excerpt ****

All objects in space (and on Earth for that matter) follow physical laws. And it turns out the laws of orbital mechanics are actually simpler than many other areas in physics because drag is usually negligible, and planetary bodies, asteroids, stars, etc, do not have the ability to alter their course like a space craft would. By using the laws of gravity to determine motion, the movement of objects in space can be determined far into the future with a high degree of accuracy.

Full Document: http://www.enteract.com/~jorune/docs/doc0005.htm

-jorune

[ktesibios]

Thank you very much. It was enlightening to see Phil work out the math on his PX page. This is even cooler- drawing a diagram is a great way to help guys like me comprehend your point.

One small quibble: the "planetxdebunk.gif" shows up way too small to read on IE. I can make out just enough to speculate that it's a scan of a handwritten page of figuring.

I'll have to try it on Opera, where I can zoom in on the page.

[jorune_98]

IE6 will shrink and image down if it doesn't fit your browser. A new 'feature' by microsoft. I 'fixed' the problem by linking the image into it's own HTML document...

Disproof of Planet X on 3657yr Orbit and Encounter with Earth in May/June 2003. Provided by Tom Smith.

http://www.enteract.com/~jorune/docs/doc0006.htm

-jorune

[GrapesOfWrath]

Tom, I notice that you mention the size and brightness of Venus at the end. Venus is only a quarter AU away right now, and we see its dark backside mostly. It looks like you've assumed Planet X is around 4 AU from the Sun (five AU from the Earth?). Maybe you should compare it to Jupiter which gets within 4 AU of Earth, and then it is as bright as -2.7 or so, but only 45 arcseconds in diameter.

[The Bad Astronomer]

A quick note: on the page about PX's orbit, you say: "For example if a ball is going to fall from a ledge and hit the ground in 1 second (excluding air drag effects) the ledge must be 32 feet high, since things on Earth fall at 32 feet/second squared. It's just the way it works."

This is not quite correct. The ledge would be 16 feet high. The speed at which the ball will be falling is 32 feet/second squared, but distance fallen after 1 second is only half that: distance = 1/2 * a * t^2. If a = 32 and t=1, then d = 16.

[SeanF]

That's not really worded correctly either, BA. 32 f/s^2 isn't a "speed."

The ball will accelerate at a rate of 32 f/s^2, so after one second it would reach a speed of 32 f/s. This gives it an average velocity of 16 f/s ((32-0)/2), so it would fall 16 feet in that one second.


_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2002-10-29 15:59 ]</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

Ah nuts, I meant that. Oh well, we all err, I guess. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[quarkburger]

On 2002-10-29 15:10, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
This is not quite correct. The ledge would be 16 feet high. The speed at which the ball will be falling is 32 feet/second squared, but distance fallen after 1 second is only half that: distance = 1/2 * a * t^2. If a = 32 and t=1, then d = 16.


DOH! I must have had a brain fart. I submitted a correction to Jorune, and he'll have it updated on his site. Thanks.

[Donnie B.]

On 2002-10-29 15:59, SeanF wrote:
That's not really worded correctly either, BA. 32 f/s^2 isn't a "speed."

The ball will accelerate at a rate of 32 f/s^2, so after one second it would reach a speed of 32 f/s. This gives it an average velocity of 16 f/s ((32-0)/2), so it would fall 16 feet in that one second.

It will, however, have a terminal velocity of 32 ft/sec at the time it hits the ground - so it's possible to read the BA's post as being correct.

[Nightfall]

On 2002-10-29 03:15, jorune_98 wrote:
IE6 will shrink and image down if it doesn't fit your browser. A new 'feature' by microsoft. I 'fixed' the problem by linking the image into it's own HTML document...

-jorune


With IE, you can return it to the proper size by hitting the button on the lower right of the image. (It'll appear when you move your mouse over it.) But this "feature" is still annoying.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nightfall on 2002-10-30 20:04 ]</font>

[Donnie B.]

On 2002-10-30 20:00, Nightfall wrote:

On 2002-10-29 03:15, jorune_98 wrote:
IE6 will shrink and image down if it doesn't fit your browser. A new 'feature' by microsoft. I 'fixed' the problem by linking the image into it's own HTML document...

-jorune


With IE, you can return it to the proper size by hitting the button on the lower right of the image. (It'll appear when you move your mouse over it.) But this "feature" is still annoying.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nightfall on 2002-10-30 20:04 ]</font>

You can also set IE so its default action is to show the image full-size, as in earlier versions. I forget exactly where the setting is... one of the huge list of check boxes in the options screen, I think.

(Added) Found it... Tools / Internet Options / Advanced / Multimedia / (uncheck) Enable Automatic Image Resizing

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-10-31 16:33 ]</font>